[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 235 (Friday, December 8, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 85502-85508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26991]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Parts 662 and 663

RIN 1840-AD90


Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowship 
Program and Faculty Research Abroad Fellowship Program

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

ACTION: Final regulations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Education (Department or we) issues 
final regulations governing the Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation 
Research Abroad (DDRA) Fellowship Program and the Faculty Research 
Abroad (FRA) Fellowship Program. This rule revises language proficiency 
qualifications for DDRA and FRA applicants and clarifies the 
Secretary's discretionary use of eligibility criteria.

DATES: These regulations are effective January 8, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela J. Maimer, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 453-6891. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#691908040c050847040800040c1b290c0d470e061f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="681809050d040946050901050d1a280d0c460f071e">[email protected]</span></a>.
    If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and 
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The DDRA Fellowship Program provides opportunities for doctoral 
students to engage in dissertation research abroad in modern foreign 
languages and area studies. The program is designed to contribute to 
the development and improvement of the study of modern foreign 
languages and area studies in the United States and to increase 
scholars' knowledge of the culture of the people in the countries or 
regions of research. The program provides fellowships to doctoral 
candidates who are planning a teaching career in the United States upon 
completion of their programs and who possess sufficient foreign 
language skills in the country or countries of research to carry out 
the dissertation research project.
    The FRA Fellowship Program provides opportunities for faculty 
members teaching modern foreign languages or area studies at U.S. 
institutions of higher education (IHEs) to engage in research abroad in 
those languages or areas studied. The program is designed to contribute 
to the faculty members' foreign language skills and to increase 
knowledge of the culture of the people in the countries or regions of 
research.
    On March 21, 2023, the Secretary published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) for these parts in the Federal Register.\1\ These 
final regulations contain changes from the NPRM, which we explain in 
the Analysis of Comments and Changes section of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 88 FR 16924.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPRM, the 
Department received five comments on the proposed regulations. We 
address those comments in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section 
below.

Analysis of Comments and Changes

    We group issues according to subject, with appropriate sections of 
the regulations referenced in parentheses, where applicable. We discuss 
other substantive issues under the sections of the regulations to which 
they pertain. Generally, we do not address minor, non-substantive 
changes (such as renumbering paragraphs, adding a word, or 
typographical errors). Additionally, we do not address recommended 
changes that the statute does not authorize the Secretary to make or 
comments pertaining to operational processes. We generally do not 
address comments pertaining to issues that were not within the scope of 
the NPRM.
    An analysis of the public comments received and the changes to the 
regulations since publication of the NPRM follows.

General Support

    Comments: Two commenters supported the proposed regulations.
    Discussion: We thank the commenters for their support. We believe 
these changes maintain the statutory goals and the integrity of the 
programs.
    Changes: None.

General Opposition

    Comments: One commenter objected to the existence of both the DDRA 
and the FRA programs.
    Discussion: These programs are authorized by statute.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 22 U.S.C. 2452(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes: None.

Secretarial Discretion (Sec. Sec.  662.21(c) and 663.21(c))

    Comments: One commenter asked the Department to explain whether the 
proposed rule is intended to merely clarify the Secretary's existing 
discretion to vary selection criteria point values assigned to DDRA or 
FRA, which was granted in a 2005 rulemaking, or whether the proposed 
rule would grant new discretion to the Secretary. If the latter, the 
commenter believed that the Department should explain any additional 
discretion and give the public an opportunity to comment on the 
proposed expansion.
    The commenter further opined that, as the Fulbright-Hays Act and 
the Department's eligibility regulations require the Secretary to 
meaningfully consider foreign language skills, the Department should 
finalize Sec. Sec.  662.21(c) and 663.21(c) without the proposed ``one 
or more'' phrase in the introductory text or otherwise clarify that the 
Secretary may not ignore foreign language skills when awarding

[[Page 85503]]

DDRA and FRA Fellowships. The commenter objected to the proposed rule 
to the extent that it would grant discretion to ignore foreign language 
skills in the DDRA and FRA competitions.
    Lastly, this commenter stated that, if finalized as proposed, the 
revisions to Sec. Sec.  662.21(c)(3), 662.21(c)(4), 663.21(c)(3), and 
663.21(c)(4) would address the concerns identified in a recent lawsuit 
filed on behalf of DDRA applicants \3\ who challenged the weight given 
to their respective native languages in the selection process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Lujan v. U.S. Dep't of Educ., No. 3:22-CV-00159-DCG, F. 
Supp. 3d__, 2023 WL 2638280 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 24, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: The Department appreciates this commenter's concerns 
and wishes to clarify that the additional discretion proposed under 
Sec. Sec.  662.21(c) and 663.21(c) to allow the Secretary to consider 
``one or more'' of the listed applicant qualification criteria, while 
expanding the Secretary's discretion under these particular programs, 
is an appropriate exercise of the Secretary's general authority under 
34 CFR 75.201 to identify and notify applicants of grant competition 
selection criteria (an authority which is routinely used, for example, 
across Departmental programs utilizing the general selection criteria 
under 34 CFR 75.210) and is consistent with the Fulbright-Hays Act.\4\ 
The Department would only use this flexibility consistent with the 
programs' statutory requirement to ``promot[e] modern foreign language 
training and area studies in United States schools[.]'' \5\ The 
Department believes that it is able to discharge this requirement and 
the purpose of these grants for ``improving [an applicant's] skill in 
languages'' within the framework of several of the criteria looking at 
the Qualification of an Applicant, and that this duty does not rest 
solely on any single criteria under that section. The flexibility to 
select ``one or more'' of the applicant qualification criteria under 
Sec. Sec.  662.21(c) and 663.21(c) will enhance the Department's 
ability to structure its grant competitions to select the most 
qualified applicants for funding, because it will allow the Department 
to focus from year-to-year on those selection criteria that have 
yielded applications from the most qualified candidates. It also will 
allow the Department to review the effect of omitting a particular 
selection criterion in a given year on the quality of applicants, 
without having to go through additional rulemaking to obtain this 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 34 CFR 75.201 (``[i]n the application package or a 
notice published in the Federal Register, the Secretary informs 
applicants of . . . [t]he selection criteria chosen[.]'').
    \5\ 22 U.S.C. 2452(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes: None.

Severability (Sec. Sec.  662.8 and 663.8)

    Comments: None.
    Discussion: Current regulations in 34 CFR 662 and 663 do not 
address severability. The Department seeks to clarify its intent that, 
with regard to severability, each of the regulations in 34 CFR parts 
662 and 663 and its subparts serves one or more important, related, but 
distinct, purposes. To best serve these purposes, we included this 
administrative provision in the regulations to make clear that the 
regulations are designed to operate independently of each other and to 
convey the Department's intent that the potential invalidity of one 
provision or any of its subparts should not affect the remainder of the 
provisions.
    Changes: We have added new severability provisions in Sec. Sec.  
662.8 and 663.8.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, the Secretary must determine 
whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, 
subject to the requirements of the E.O. and subject to review by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as 
amended by E.O. 14094, defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as 
an action likely to result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more 
(adjusted every three years by the Administrator of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for changes in gross domestic 
product); or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector 
of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, 
public health or safety, or state, local, territorial, or Tribal 
governments or communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review would 
meaningfully further the President's priorities or the principles 
stated in the Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely 
manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.
    This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action 
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 
(as amended by E.O. 14094).
    We have also reviewed these regulations under E.O. 13563, which 
supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and 
definitions governing regulatory review established in E.O. 12866. To 
the extent permitted by law, E.O. 13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs 
of cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or providing 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    E.O. 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best available 
techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and 
costs as accurately as possible.'' OMB's OIRA has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    The Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both 
quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action, and we are 
issuing these final requirements only on a reasoned determination that 
their benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative 
regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize 
net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows and the reasons stated 
elsewhere in this document, the Department believes that the final 
requirements are consistent with the principles in E.O. 13563.

[[Page 85504]]

    We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with state, local, territorial, or Tribal governments in the 
exercise of their governmental functions.
    In this regulatory impact analysis, we discuss the need for 
regulatory action, the potential costs and benefits, and net budget 
impacts.
    Elsewhere, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), we 
identify and explain burdens specifically associated with information 
collection requirements.

Need for Regulatory Action

    The Department amends the DDRA and FRA program regulations to 
promote fairness in the application review process for native speakers 
of languages other than English. These revisions are also consistent 
with the statutory framework for the DDRA and FRA programs and are 
necessary to support the statutory goal of ``promoting modern foreign 
language training and area studies in United States schools[.]'' \6\ 
Additionally, revising the introductory language of Sec. Sec.  
662.21(c) and 663.21(c) to allow consideration of ``one or more'' of 
the listed criteria will enable the Department to administer these 
competitive grant programs in a manner that prioritizes the most 
qualified applicants for funding. Finally, the addition of severability 
clauses to the regulations for these programs will enable the 
Department to administer these programs more effectively if a component 
of the regulations is invalidated by a court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 22 U.S.C. 2452(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Costs, Benefits, and Transfers

    The Department believes this regulatory action will not impose 
significant new cost-bearing requirements on IHEs or other entities. We 
also believe that the benefits of implementing this regulatory action 
outweigh any associated costs.
    We anticipate a minimal increase of 10-15 DDRA and FRA program 
applications as a result of eliminating the native language proficiency 
exclusion and foresee minimal impact on the Department's time and cost 
for reviewing these additional applications.
    Over the last 5 years, the amount of annual funding for the DDRA 
program has ranged from approximately $3.4 to $5.5 million, with an 
average of 200 grant applications received per year, and an average of 
50 percent of applications ultimately receiving grant awards. With the 
changes to the regulation, the Department expects an increase of 10-15 
applications per year, based on the number of applicants that have 
applied to study a geographic area that shares their native language 
skills in recent years.
    An increase in the number of applicants or awards granted could 
result in additional costs to the Department in securing readers to 
review applications, but if additional costs arise, they will be 
minimal. The Department pays readers $1,200 to review applications, and 
the number of applications per reader ranges from 15 to a maximum of 
22. An increase in 10-15 applications could increase costs by an 
additional $1,200 to secure an additional reader. However, the number 
of DDRA applications has declined over the last several years from a 
high of almost 250 to a low of just more than 150 in 2022. As a result, 
an increase in immediate applications would not result in any overall 
comparative additional costs, as a nominal increase in applications 
will restore DDRA to the average amount of applications received in 
prior years. We anticipate no additional costs to grant recipients, as 
we will continue to pay for grant activities with program funds. We 
also note that program participation is voluntary.
    In fiscal year (FY) 2022, the Department conducted an FRA 
competition and awarded 22 recipients a total of approximately $1.3 
million. The FY 2022 competition was the first FRA competition in more 
than 10 years. The Fulbright-Hays appropriation decreased from $15.6 
million in FY 2010 to $7.5 million in FY 2011; the nearly 50 percent 
decrease in available funding hindered our ability to conduct 
competitions and make awards under all four Fulbright-Hays programs. 
The result was a suspension of the FRA program from 2011 to 2021.
    Between 2011 and 2021, the funding level for the Fulbright-Hays 
programs averaged $7.4 million. In FY 2022, the amount increased to 
$9.8 million, which enabled us to re-activate the FRA program. Although 
we will not conduct the FRA competition in FY 2023, we do anticipate 
conducting another FRA competition in FY 2024, contingent upon funding 
availability. Given that we held only one FRA competition in the last 
10 years, we cannot discuss potential trends in those program 
applications or potential corresponding costs.
    The benefits of these final regulations include better aligning 
DDRA and FRA applicant qualifications with other comparable grant 
programs to focus on overall language proficiency and increasing 
equitable access to research abroad for those demonstrating language 
proficiency in the language of the countries in which their doctoral-
level or faculty research study will occur. This will apply regardless 
of the applicant's native language. Additionally, we expect that the 
regulations will lead to an increase in the number of applications 
overall, which will make the program more competitive and enable the 
Department to fund even higher quality applications. The increase in 
applications specifically from individuals with native languages other 
than English will yield additional applications from individuals 
speaking a wider variety of native languages, as well as more 
applications recommended for funding from these individuals. These 
regulations will also more fully account for proficiency by adding a 
new selection criterion that considers an applicant's academic record. 
Under this criterion, we will consider any steps the applicant has 
taken to improve proficiency in the language of study and ensure 
adequate preparation for the proposed research project. We believe this 
criterion will support the programmatic goal of the DDRA and FRA to 
promote training ``in United States schools, colleges, and 
universities.'' Allowing applicants to show steps taken to improve 
their language proficiency in an academic setting will better 
demonstrate their ability to study in that language abroad. This change 
may also encourage applicants to complete additional training as a way 
to strengthen their application.
    Finally, providing Secretarial discretion to determine the factors 
that will be considered when reviewing the qualifications of applicants 
would increase flexibility to implement the program within statutory 
requirements while adapting to changing Departmental priorities for 
international and foreign language education. This change will align 
DDRA and FRA with other Departmental programs that provide discretion 
to the Secretary to select among the regulated selection criteria when 
deciding which criteria to emphasize in a competition year.
    We do not anticipate any cost to the Federal government as a result 
of this particular change, beyond nominal costs associated with 
updating the application package. We do not expect any impact on the 
number of applications received as a result of this change, nor do we 
anticipate any costs to grant recipients. Accordingly, we do not 
anticipate any burden cost with the addition of this particular 
criterion.

[[Page 85505]]

Net Budget Impacts

    These proposed regulations are not estimated to have a significant 
net impact on the Federal budget. As noted above, the Department 
estimates that these final regulations will not result in additional 
net costs.

Alternatives Considered

    In addition to allowing native speakers to receive points based on 
Sec. Sec.  662.21(c)(3) and 663.21(c)(3), we considered allowing 
English as the language for the country of research, which is currently 
restricted. We did not take that approach because we believe 
maintaining the requirement that applicants demonstrate proficiency in 
a language ``other than English'' more appropriately meets the 
statutory goal of ``promoting modern foreign language training and area 
studies in United States schools[.]'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 22 U.S.C. 2452(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also considered continuing to solely provide points for language 
proficiency without consideration of additional steps taken to improve 
proficiency. We did not take that approach because we believe that 
including a criterion that considers steps taken to improve proficiency 
in a domestic academic setting better meets the statutory goal of 
promoting training ``in United States schools, colleges, and 
universities'' \8\ and will better demonstrate applicants' ability to 
study in that language abroad. This change may also encourage 
applicants to complete additional training as a way to strengthen their 
application. Additionally, we believe that replacing the exclusion for 
native language skills other than English with a focus on both an 
applicant's current foreign language skills and efforts to master the 
language of study will be more effective in increasing the capabilities 
and diversity of applicants and participants, while remaining 
consistent with the statutory goals of these programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Secretary certifies under the Regulatory Flexibility Act \9\ 
that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of ``small entities.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The small entities that will be affected by the proposed 
regulations are IHEs that submit applications to the Department under 
this program. The final regulations will not have a significant 
economic impact on the small entities affected because they will not 
impose excessive regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal 
supervision. The final regulations will impose minimal requirements to 
ensure the proper expenditure of program funds.
    In the NPRM, we invited the public to comment on our proposed 
certification that these regulations would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We did not 
receive any comments on this subject.
    The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines ``small 
institution'' using data on revenue, market dominance, tax filing 
status, governing body, and population. Most entities to which the 
Office of Postsecondary Education's regulations apply are postsecondary 
institutions. However, we do not require institutions to report such 
data to the Department. As a result, for purposes of this final rule, 
the Department defines ``small entities'' by reference to enrollment to 
allow meaningful comparison of regulatory impact across all types of 
higher education institutions.\10\ We consider two-year postsecondary 
educational institutions with enrollment of fewer than 500 full-time 
equivalent (FTE) and 4-year postsecondary educational institutions with 
enrollment of fewer than 1,000 FTE to be small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In some prior regulations, the Department categorized small 
businesses based on tax status. Those regulations defined ``non-
profit organizations'' as ``small organizations'' if they were 
independently owned and operated and not dominant in their field of 
operation, or as ``small entities'' if they were institutions 
controlled by governmental entities with populations below 50,000. 
Those definitions resulted in the categorization of all private 
nonprofit organizations as small and no public institutions as 
small. Under the previous definition, proprietary institutions were 
considered small if they were independently owned and operated and 
not dominant in their field of operation with total annual revenue 
below $7,000,000.

                          Table 1--Small Institutions Under Enrollment-Based Definition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Percentage of
                              Type                                     Small           Total           total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proprietary.....................................................           1,973           2,331              85
    2-year......................................................           1,734           1,990              87
    4-year......................................................             239             341              70
Private not-for-profit..........................................             983           1,831              54
    2-year......................................................             185             203              91
    4-year......................................................             798           1,628              49
Public..........................................................             380           1,924              20
    2-year......................................................             317           1,145              28
    4-year......................................................              63             779               8
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total...................................................           3,336           6,086              55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Department analysis of 2020-21 IPEDS data.

    The Department used Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 
(IPEDS) data from fiscal year 2020 reported under the finance data 
category. This reporting does not include all participating 
institutions and provides approximate data.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act also requires us to estimate the 
effect of the final regulations on small entities. We identified 27 of 
the 97 affected entities as small. As noted above, we estimated that 
this final rule will result in benefits for all affected entities 
without regulatory burden. We estimated that small institutions will, 
on average, see an increase of approximately $952,400 in funding. 
Similarly, we projected that non-small institutions will receive an 
increase of approximately $407,900.
    In terms of regulatory impact, these regulations are designed to 
avoid excessive burdens or unnecessary Federal supervision. The minimal 
cost that these regulations will impose are those associated with 
grantees' obligation to certify participant eligibility and safeguard 
the proper expenditure of program funds. Consequently, the Department 
certifies

[[Page 85506]]

that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies 
with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections 
of information in accordance with the PRA.\11\ This helps to ensure 
that the public understands the Department's collection instructions, 
respondents can provide the requested data in the desired format, 
reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, 
collection instruments are clearly understood, and the Department can 
properly assess the impact of collection requirements on respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sections 662.21(c)(3) and 663.21(c)(3) of the regulations contain 
information collection requirements. Under the PRA, the Department 
submitted a copy of these sections to OMB for review.
    A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of 
information unless OMB approves the collection under the PRA and the 
corresponding information collection instrument displays a currently 
valid OMB control number. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
no person is required to comply with, or is subject to penalty for 
failure to comply with, a collection of information if the collection 
instrument does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
    In these final regulations, we provide the control number assigned 
by OMB to any information collection requirements. The information 
collection impacted by these regulatory changes is the Application for 
the DDRA and FRA Programs, OMB Control Number 1840-0005. Under the DDRA 
and FRA programs, individual scholars apply through eligible 
institutions for an institutional grant to support the research 
fellowship. These institutions administer the program, in cooperation 
with the Department, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  102(b)(6) and 104(e)(1) of 
the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (Fulbright-
Hays Act), 34 CFR parts 662 and 663, the Policy Statements of the J. 
William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board (FSB), and the Education 
Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR).
    The Department, U.S. foreign language and area studies specialists, 
the U.S. Department of State, U.S. Embassies, Fulbright Commissions, 
host country officials and scholars, and the FSB use these data. This 
use is necessary to determine the academic qualifications and 
suitability of the individual applicant, potential political 
sensitivity and feasibility of the project in the host country, 
research climate, and adequacy of the proposed budget.
    The Department awards grants under these programs annually.
    The DDRA and FRA application (1840-0005) will be affected by the 
regulatory changes in the following ways:
    <bullet> We will change the application package to eliminate the 
native language proficiency exclusion.
    <bullet> We will include additional language in the DDRA and FRA 
selection criteria (under Sec. Sec.  662.21(c)(3) and 663.21(c)(3)) 
that requires minimal changes on the technical review forms.

                                         Table 2--Estimated Burden Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Estimated     Total annual
                                     Number of    Average burden   Total burden     respondent     costs (hourly
             Program                respondents      hours per         hours      average hourly   wage x total
                                                     response                          wage        burden hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DDRA Student Respondent.........             325              25           8,125              $0              $0
DDRA Institution Project                      50              25           1,250           47.20          59,000
 Director.......................
FRA Faculty Respondent..........              70              25           1,750           36.33          63,578
FRA Institution Project Director              50              15             750           47.20          35,400
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Annualized total............             495  ..............          11,875  ..............         157,978
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The hour burden for individual DDRA student respondents is 
estimated at an average of 25 hours for each student. The cost burden 
for DDRA student applicants is zero. We estimated that the changes to 
these regulations may result in a small increase in the number of DDRA 
student respondents from 310 to 325 submitting a single application. 
When multiplied by 25 hours, this results in an increase in DDRA 
student burden hours from 7,750 to 8,125.
    We estimated the hour burden for the 50 DDRA institutional project 
directors to be 25 hours for reviewing each DDRA application for a 
total burden of 1,250. The cost burden of $47.20 for institutional DDRA 
applicants totals $59,000. We used feedback from DDRA respondents 
during the last three years to estimate these amounts.
    The hour burden for the 70 individual FRA respondents is estimated 
to average 25 hours for each faculty member to complete the application 
for a total of 1,750 hours. The cost burden for faculty applicants at 
$36.33 totals $63,578.
    The hour burden for the 50 FRA institutional project directors is 
estimated to be 15 hours for reviewing each FRA application for a total 
burden of 750 hours. The cost burden for institutional FRA applicants 
at $47.20 is $35,400. These estimates are based on feedback from FRA 
respondents during the last three years.
    These estimates incorporate completion of the following tasks:
    1. Register in the G5 e-Application system (project director);
    2. Complete official forms (student/faculty and project director);
    3. Develop the application narrative and budget (student/faculty);
    4. Screen individual completed applications (project director); and
    5. Transmit completed individual applications to the Department in 
a single submission via G5 (project director).
    We note that the hour burdens for the DDRA and FRA project 
directors differ because the FRA program is smaller and has fewer 
applicants. DDRA project directors generally process applications for 
multiple students; FRA project directors generally process an 
application for a single faculty member.
    The data in Table 2 are an estimate of the time needed for both 
institutional project directors and individual student and faculty 
respondents to complete tasks listed.

[[Page 85507]]



                                       Table 3--Collection of Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               OMB Control #1840-0005--estimated
            Regulatory section                   Information collection                     burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
34 CFR Sec.   662.21(c)(3)...............  This regulatory provision will     The number of respondents and the
                                            require changing the application   number of annual burden hours
                                            package to eliminate the native    will increase to 495 and 11,875
                                            language proficiency exclusion.    respectively; the annual burden
                                                                               costs will remain at $157,978.
34 CFR Sec.   663.21(c)(3)...............  This regulatory provision will     The number of respondents and the
                                            require new language in the DDRA   number of annual burden hours
                                            and FRA selection criteria to      will increase to 495 and 11,875
                                            consider steps an applicant has    respectively; the annual burden
                                            taken to improve their language    costs will remain at $157,978.
                                            proficiency.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) for these 
changes to the information collection requirements. We invited the 
public to comment on the ICR but did not receive any comments.
    OMB approved the collection of information contained in these 
regulations under OMB Control number 1840-0005 on March 2, 2023.

Intergovernmental Review

    The proposed regulations are not subject to E.O. 12372 and the 
regulations in 34 CFR part 79.

Assessment of Educational Impact

    Based on our review, we have determined that these regulations do 
not require transmission of information that any other agency or 
authority of the United States gathers or makes available.

Federalism

    E.O. 13132 requires us to obtain meaningful and timely input by 
state and local elected officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have federalism implications. ``Federalism implications'' 
means substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship 
between the National Government and the states, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 
The proposed regulations do not have federalism implications.
    Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities 
can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will 
provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich 
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, 
braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible 
format.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this 
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published 
in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To 
use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at 
the site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

List of Subjects

34 CFR Part 662

    Colleges and universities, Educational research, Educational study 
programs, Grant programs--education, Scholarships and fellowships.

34 CFR Part 663

    Colleges and universities, Educational research, Educational study 
programs, Grant programs--education, Scholarships and fellowships, 
Teachers.

Miguel A. Cardona,
Secretary of Education.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary amends 
parts 662 and 663 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as 
follows:

PART 662--FULBRIGHT-HAYS DOCTORAL DISSERTATION RESEARCH ABROAD 
FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM

0
1. The authority citation for part 662 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  Section 102(b)(6) of the Fulbright-Hays Act, 22 
U.S.C. 2452(b)(6), unless otherwise noted.


0
2. Add Sec.  662.8 to subpart A to read as follows:


Sec.  662.8   Severability.

    If any provision of this part or its application to any person, 
act, or practice is held invalid, the remainder of the part or the 
application of its provisions to any person, act, or practice will not 
be affected thereby.

0
3. Amend Sec.  662.21 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text and (c)(3);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (c)(4) as (c)(5); and
0
c. Adding a new paragraph (c)(4).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  662.21   What criteria does the Secretary use to evaluate an 
application for a fellowship?

* * * * *
    (c) Qualifications of the applicant. The Secretary reviews each 
application to determine the qualifications of the applicant. In 
coordination with any priorities established under paragraph (d) of 
this section, the Secretary considers one or more of the following--
* * * * *
    (3) The applicant's proficiency in one or more of the languages 
(other than English) of the host country or countries of research;
    (4) The extent to which the applicant's academic record 
demonstrates steps taken to further improve advanced language 
proficiency to overcome any anticipated language barriers relative to 
the proposed research project;
* * * * *

PART 663--FULBRIGHT-HAYS FACULTY RESEARCH ABROAD FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM

0
4. The authority citation for part 663 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  Section 102(b)(6) of the Fulbright-Hays Act, 22 
U.S.C. 2452(b)(6), unless otherwise noted.


0
5. Add Sec.  663.8 to subpart A to read as follows:


Sec.  663.8  Severability.

    If any provision of this part or its application to any person, 
act, or practice is held invalid, the remainder of the part or the 
application of its provisions to any person, act, or practice will not 
be affected thereby.

[[Page 85508]]


0
6. Amend Sec.  663.21 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text and (c)(3);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (c)(4) as (c)(5); and
0
c. Adding a new paragraph (c)(4).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  663.21   What criteria does the Secretary use to evaluate an 
application for a fellowship?

* * * * *
    (c) Qualifications of the applicant. The Secretary reviews each 
application to determine the qualifications of the applicant. In 
coordination with any priorities established under paragraph (d) of 
this section, the Secretary considers one or more of the following--
* * * * *
    (3) The applicant's proficiency in one or more of the languages 
(other than English) of the host country or countries of research;
    (4) The extent to which the applicant's academic record 
demonstrates steps taken to further improve advanced language 
proficiency to overcome any anticipated language barriers relative to 
the proposed research project;
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-26991 Filed 12-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>